I'm always interested in what early forebodings of the demographic conquest we are now experiencing, variously described as the Great Replacement, the European Genocide or White Genocide. The term "White Genocide" seems to have established itself in the US while Renaud Camus' "The Great Replacement" has been picked up in Europe and popularised by the identitarian movement.

Here we have an extract from an article published in the Guardian on April 2nd, 1981: "The myths that fuel fears of violence".

3
comments:

Mulling over how so many people now use the terms 'black', 'white' and 'brown', it occurs to me that, in using these terms ourselves, we are acquiescing in a very insidious bit of propaganda: those words are all terms for a colour, not a race (Caucasian/Caucasoid, Negro/Negroid, Asian/Mongoloid) and thus, they help to reinforce the opposition's contention that 'race' is merely a matter of skin pigmentation when, in fact, it has long been established in biology, genetics, science, that race is related to intelligence, application of intelligence, socio-ethical behaviour, civilisational development, etc. Would it not be wiser if we adopted the more correct terminology that identifies groups along their racist lines, rather than along a 'colour scheme' which is a false definition?

The Guardian probably neglected to inform its readership that, although then 'only' 13% of the US population, nearly 50% of serious crimes were committed by Negroes. Numbers alone do not matter: a nation can be successfully conquered by a few determined ideologues (the Jewish-Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917) and on the other hand, with minimal numbers of British Regiments and Civil Servants managed to maintain law and order in India during the British Empire.